mic high pass filter. built-in vs applied in DAW
- Thread starter nognow
- Start date
TwilightOdyssey
Darkness on the edge of Tone
Re: mic high pass filter. built-in vs applied in DAW
No benefit aside from it saving you a step later. I always record guitar with the hi pass engaged in my SSL, but it's a very gentle 3dB/octave, so it still requires more filtering when mixing.
No benefit aside from it saving you a step later. I always record guitar with the hi pass engaged in my SSL, but it's a very gentle 3dB/octave, so it still requires more filtering when mixing.
NecroPolo
New member
Re: mic high pass filter. built-in vs applied in DAW
I assume, this thread belongs to the tips'n'clips section.
If you single-tracking one instrument / performer it is better to use full-range. Using HP filters starts to be important when you're multi-mic'ing a drumkit, a full band etc. There it is vital to put everything to its place right at the beginning as seemingly small details can start devastating domino effects during mixing. You can apply deep processing during post-production but not everything is possible and small things can add up to a 'nice' array of compromises, fixing issues and so on that in general restrict artistic decisions. To make life easier, if you decide using HP filters at the wrong place it can also ruin your freedom during mixing. All is relative and depending on what you wish to capture.
Recording profession sucks in so many ways.
I assume, this thread belongs to the tips'n'clips section.
If you single-tracking one instrument / performer it is better to use full-range. Using HP filters starts to be important when you're multi-mic'ing a drumkit, a full band etc. There it is vital to put everything to its place right at the beginning as seemingly small details can start devastating domino effects during mixing. You can apply deep processing during post-production but not everything is possible and small things can add up to a 'nice' array of compromises, fixing issues and so on that in general restrict artistic decisions. To make life easier, if you decide using HP filters at the wrong place it can also ruin your freedom during mixing. All is relative and depending on what you wish to capture.
Recording profession sucks in so many ways.
Last edited:
F
Funkfingers
Guest
Re: mic high pass filter. built-in vs applied in DAW
HF filtering can be applied in an attempt to minimise mechanical vibration getting transmitted through stands. (Shock mounting should eliminate this but does not always completely succeed.)
HF filtering can be applied in an attempt to minimise mechanical vibration getting transmitted through stands. (Shock mounting should eliminate this but does not always completely succeed.)
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: mic high pass filter. built-in vs applied in DAW
The HP on the mic is best if you have a genuine problem at the source sound that can't be solved other ways. Getting a full-range recording of something that has issues to start with isn't going to get effectively fixed in the box.
If the source sound is stellar, then leave well enough alone at the mic and only apply conservative HP in the box if necessary to carve a little space in the mix, but leaving options to remix other ways later.
The HP on the mic is best if you have a genuine problem at the source sound that can't be solved other ways. Getting a full-range recording of something that has issues to start with isn't going to get effectively fixed in the box.
If the source sound is stellar, then leave well enough alone at the mic and only apply conservative HP in the box if necessary to carve a little space in the mix, but leaving options to remix other ways later.
eclecticsynergy
Well-known member
Re: mic high pass filter. built-in vs applied in DAW
Some live soundmen still call this by its original name, RUMBLE FILTER. And live, it translates not just to less extraneous noise but to noticeably more punch from your subwoofers.
Less necessary in the studio, unless you have trucks going by outside and less-than-adequate soundproofing. Still, what it cuts out is not going to hobble your mixdown capability. We're talking about frequencies that are well below the lowest notes of a guitar or voice. They won't be missed.
1: Unless you've got a three piece band running a Recto with huge low end, you won't hear any appreciable difference when it's mixed with the other instruments. The guitarist might be able to notice it when a track is soloed but it won't sound significantly thinner in the final perceived tone.
2: If anything, the absence of ultra lows can arguably help the guitar sit better in the mix- clearer, more distinct from other sounds, and with enhanced definition for the actual guitar parts themselves, even chugging sections. Without rumble, the hugest chunk stops on a dime.
3: Better stereo. Remember that low frequencies are pretty much omnidirectional- not only do they blur the overall imaging in your mix more, but if you have two guitars panned slightly off center opposite each other, more low frequency content means more overlap and less distinction between the two.
4: Headroom, the biggest consideration of all. Having a clearer low spectrum immediately leaves more room for the things that really need that thump in the bass: kick drum, toms, snare, synth bass. Bass guitar can actually benefit from low cut also, for the sake of clarity. In bass guitar the fatness really lives above the rumble and in fact you can often boost the low end to better effect when it's been recorded with low cut, since when you EQ it to mix you can boost the lows and get hard bass without it all suffusing into a mess of rumble.
In forty years of live sound and thirty years of studio recording I've found that low cut on everything that doesn't explicitly need those ultra lows can be a simple ticket to punchier drums and a cleaner, bigger overall sound, with less rumble in the room when you crank it up and less concern over compression artifacts in the final mixes.
That's my feeling on it, anyway. As with anything music-related, YMMV.
EDIT: Talking rock mixes here, of course. I'm not advocating low cut across the board for chamber music, acoustic groups or solo piano, etc. Naturally, simpler and/or purer-toned music doesn't have the same concerns over headroom, crowded imaging and competition for low-end punch...
Some live soundmen still call this by its original name, RUMBLE FILTER. And live, it translates not just to less extraneous noise but to noticeably more punch from your subwoofers.
Less necessary in the studio, unless you have trucks going by outside and less-than-adequate soundproofing. Still, what it cuts out is not going to hobble your mixdown capability. We're talking about frequencies that are well below the lowest notes of a guitar or voice. They won't be missed.
1: Unless you've got a three piece band running a Recto with huge low end, you won't hear any appreciable difference when it's mixed with the other instruments. The guitarist might be able to notice it when a track is soloed but it won't sound significantly thinner in the final perceived tone.
2: If anything, the absence of ultra lows can arguably help the guitar sit better in the mix- clearer, more distinct from other sounds, and with enhanced definition for the actual guitar parts themselves, even chugging sections. Without rumble, the hugest chunk stops on a dime.
3: Better stereo. Remember that low frequencies are pretty much omnidirectional- not only do they blur the overall imaging in your mix more, but if you have two guitars panned slightly off center opposite each other, more low frequency content means more overlap and less distinction between the two.
4: Headroom, the biggest consideration of all. Having a clearer low spectrum immediately leaves more room for the things that really need that thump in the bass: kick drum, toms, snare, synth bass. Bass guitar can actually benefit from low cut also, for the sake of clarity. In bass guitar the fatness really lives above the rumble and in fact you can often boost the low end to better effect when it's been recorded with low cut, since when you EQ it to mix you can boost the lows and get hard bass without it all suffusing into a mess of rumble.
In forty years of live sound and thirty years of studio recording I've found that low cut on everything that doesn't explicitly need those ultra lows can be a simple ticket to punchier drums and a cleaner, bigger overall sound, with less rumble in the room when you crank it up and less concern over compression artifacts in the final mixes.
That's my feeling on it, anyway. As with anything music-related, YMMV.
EDIT: Talking rock mixes here, of course. I'm not advocating low cut across the board for chamber music, acoustic groups or solo piano, etc. Naturally, simpler and/or purer-toned music doesn't have the same concerns over headroom, crowded imaging and competition for low-end punch...
Last edited:
Similar threads
